DA: Deny Westerfield Access To Police Records: Media Asks For Access To Documents And Trial

KGTV Channel 10 ^ | April 15, 2002 | KGTV

[spectre]

Oh, dear Miz...I thought the guy was only interested in children? He was oggling the ladies? He was single...duhhhh.

I am going to be gone at the moment the hearing is taking place today, so PLEASE ping me with any new info.

Many thanks, sw

[FresnoDA]

Media Press For Release Of Van Dam Murder Information

Defendant's Lawyers Argue Documents Should Remain Sealed

 

POSTED: 2:52 p.m. PDT April 17, 2002

UPDATED: 3:00 p.m. PDT April 17, 2002

SAN DIEGO -- An attorney for the news media asked a state appeals court Wednesday to unseal documents filed by police to justify searching the home and vehicles of the man accused of killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam.

It has been seven weeks since David Westerfield, 50, was booked on charges of kidnapping and killing the second-grader from Sabre Spings. But the information that led police to seek search warrants in the case is still under court seal.

News media requests for the affidavits police filed to obtain the search warrants were rejected last month by the trial judge. Tuesday, attorney Guylin Cummins appealed that decision to the 4th District Court of Appeal. Three judges listened to Cummins argue that the public's right to know the details of the judicial process outweighs concerns by defense lawyers that Westerfield will get a fair trial.

"All search warrant materials that are relied on by the court are to be released as judicial records, once the warrant's returned," Cummins told the court. "That has been codified into the court rules by the Supreme Court, I believe a year ago."

The justices questioned whether the information in the sealed documents would prejudice the objectivity of potential jurors in San Diego. They also asked whether there was any point in releasing the document since so much information about the investigation and the evidence in the case came out during Westerfield's preliminary hearing, which was televised.

But a member of Westerfield's defense team, Laura Schaefer, argued that the affidavits contain undisclosed information and that most of it is inadmissible in court. She said the case has received such widespread coverage that it may not be possible to find an unbiased jury anywhere in California if the affidavits are released. She said that Westerfield would be best served by having the case tried in San Diego.

"Essentially, I don't think the public has a right to discuss it," Schaefer told the court. "What's going to happen is, this is going to be discussed again and again on the news. Some of the matter, although it has been released, is clearly inadmissible and should not have been released.

"Mr. Westerfield's right to receive a fair trial in this case, in which his life is potentially at stake, is balanced against the public's right to know, and to discuss this case on the 6 o'clock news," Schaefer said. "I would suggest that that's a pretty easy call."

Westerfield's attorneys will return to court tomorrow to ask Superior Court Judge William Mudd to allow them to review personnel records of 13 officers involved in the investigation. The defense attorneys argue in court papers that two detectives who interrogated Westerfield have a past that includes allegations of "excessive force and dishonesty."

Cummins, on behalf of the media, will ask Mudd to reconsider his ruling ordering all pretrial motions sealed until May 6. She also will ask the judge to lift a gag order in the case, and lift an order barring TV coverage of pretrial proceedings.

[FresnoDA]

Westerfield Fights To Keep Search Warrants Sealed

News Media Eager To Learn What Police Were Looking For

Posted: 11:33 a.m. PDT April 17, 2002
Updated: 6:03 p.m. PDT April 17, 2002

SAN DIEGO -- The 4th District Court of Appeal heard oral arguments Wednesday regarding a motion to unseal search warrant affidavits for in the Danielle van Dam murder case, 10News reported.

Lawyers from the San Diego Union-Tribune are the driving force behind the legal battle. Lawyers for the paper argue that the public has a right to see the affidavits, which outline why police went into the home and recreational vehicle of David Westerfield while investigating 7-year-old Danielle van Dam's disappearance.

Members of the San Diego news media have been eager to gain access to those records for several months, but Westerfield's lawyers have objected, arguing that the affidavits may paint an inaccurate picture of the investigation.

In Wednesday's hearing Judge Richard Hoffman offered a reason as to why the affidavits might taint the public's view of Westerfield (pictured, right).

"It is legitimate in a search warrant to use hearsay, it is legitimate to use multiple layers of hearsay. It is legitimate to use items that are not admissible as evidence. And it is legitimate for a search warrant to actually be erroneous, as long as it's rendered in good faith and a reasonable officer and a reasonable magistrate would have believed it at the time," Hoffman said.

Union-Tribune attorney Guylyn Cummins told 10News that she hopes the court will rule on the side of the news media.

"Obviously, we believe the public is entitled to access to these records," Cummins said.

The court has said that the affidavits would be released after the trial, but Cummins has argued that the documents need to be released now because "we don't have a secret arrest system."

"It's important for the public to be able to monitor the search warrant system, as much as the judicial process," she said.

[FresnoDA]

FAIR TRIAL VS. PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW

( 04-17-2002 ) - Attorneys for accused child killer David Westerfield returned to court Wednesday to fight to keep legal documents out of the news, as an attorney for the Union Tribune was asking a panel of judges to unseal search warrant affidavits for public scrutiny.

Defense attorneys argue that it would violate Westerfield's right to a fair trial in the Danielle van Dam murder.

After hearing arguments from David Westerfield's attorney and a lawyer from the Union Tribune Newspaper, the Court of Appeals judges will now decide if search warrants and affidavits, the statements contained in the search warrants, will be unsealed in the case.

The three judges listened to both sides for about an hour about a defendant's right to get a fair trial vs. the public's right to know.

The media is arguing that much of the sealed information has already been revealed in open court during David Westerfield's preliminary hearing, and that the remaining material should be made available.

However, Westerfield's attorney is arguing that the first amendment doesn't necessarily entitle the police statements to become public record. Thus, perhaps interfering with David Westerfield's right to get a fair trial.

"Numerous high profile trials in this century and the last century. That alone, even in the Nebraska press case in a community the size of 80,000, was not enough to trump the publics right to know. And the Supreme Court painstakingly said exactly how high the hurdles and the burden are," said Union Tribune Attorney, Gulin Cummins.

"Mr. Westerfield's right to receive a fair trial in this case, in which his life is potentially at stake, is balanced against the public's right to know and to discuss this case on the six o'clock news. I would suggest that that's a pretty easy call. There's been so much publicity in this case," said Westerfield's attorney, Laura Schaefer.

A deputy district attorney also spoke before the panel Wednesday afternoon, stating that he believed in the public's right to know, as well as media access. But he also said that a complete unsealing of the information could perhaps damage David Westerfield's case.

The judges should make a ruling by the end of this week.

[Jaded]

I agree with Miz, if DW had a record it would have come out before he was arrested. If the affidavits contain information a hung-over tripped out Brenda or Damon fabricated, it will be taken as fact. Remember 3 blood drops(largest 1/4 inch)=Bloodbath. Really don't blame Feldman.

[MizSterious]

"The court has said that the affidavits would be released after the trial..."

I don't see why we should have to wait until after the trial. They could be released once the jury is seated, and that would be fair enough to all parties. The affies should be made public during the trial, along with the details of the motions that have been filed.

[Jaded]

Wonder if they will sequester the jury.

[MizSterious]

"She said that Westerfield would be best served by having the case tried in San Diego."

I guess this pretty much settles the change of venue issue. Most "experts" thought they'd ask for a changein venue. Seems maybe they won't, from this.

[MizSterious]

I'm betting "yes" on that one. But that's just my guess.

[Jaded]

Perhaps it because too many locals are actually looking at this and saying "hmmmm, something is odd".

[Freedom2specul8]

Ring a ling, ting a ling, bing a ling..ding a lings

[Cold Heat]

Thanks for the ping. I am still here, just engaged in more important thoughts. Looks like another media trial in the making.

[Freedom2specul8]

Me too..and I've been busy working in the yard, and having ''fun'. :)

[Cold Heat]

Yup! The grass is growing and the flower beds need renual.(wife does the flower beds) (I do the grass.) (Son does the raking.)

It is a good time of the year.

[Freedom2specul8]

Sounds like us! My daughter and son takes turns mowing. Hubby has created a special weed and fertilizing plan..We moved in this house last year, and the previous owners didn't do much..(it's a new neighborhood) so I get to plan the flower gardens from scratch. Am planting gladiolas for the first time. It's been awesome to have warm weather.. So..the news fiasco surrounding the van dam case won't be able to drag me away from the fun outside. But I do want to 'keep up' with what's going on.

[Valpal1]

Gotta say I'm with Feldman on this. I think I defendant's right to a fair trial is much greater than the public's right to know (or more accurately - the news media's ability to make money off of DW's legal problems).

Problem for the media is this information will sell more papers before the trial, than it will after the trial. So they want it NOW!

Weather's too nice, it's T-ball season. I think I'll let God and the jury sort it out. And of course after the jury has sorted it out, the public will give a big yawn over the release of all the sealed documents, man, it's over, who cares, move on. Only a few (us junkies) will still be interested and we can argue the merits of the case till doomsday with or without the information!

I hope the judge tells 'em tough nuts.

[FresnoDA]

HOWDY....New thread alert......FDA

 

Westerfield Lawyers Fight For Police Personnel Files:U-T asks court to unseal papers on Westerfield.

[Jaded]

You go girl!

[RnMomof7]

Hey Ding Dong thanks for the ping..without you I would never know what is happening

[RnMomof7]

I was thinking about that the other day..I see the dogs finding the scent unremarkable..they were neighbors..the kids had been in the house and yard with "mommy"..Did the cops trail some of the scent into the motor home??Could be..Did the neighborhood kids sometimes go into it.They would in our neighboor.When we camped every kid on the street was in and out of it. I want to know if they have witnesses or DNA..without it all they have is suspicion IMHO